30th May 2003

Hi K,

Is not the essence of the Bhagwad Gita


Karmanyewa adhikaraste ma phaleshu kadachana.

You have the right to your karma (work) but not over the fruits of your work.

I know these lines have been offered, over centuries, as the essence of Gita, the "do your duty, no right over fruits of the duty" etc etc.

In the statement, "Do your work or duty", to whom is this being addressed to ?

Who has to do the work and duty?

Who must not have expectation about the results of the work and duty?

An individual self?

Is there an existential reality to that "self"?

Today, neuro-scientists and behavioural experts have concluded that what we have is a psycho-somatic apparatus, a biological computer, with an innate conditioning-in-the moment, which fashions the response of this instrument, to an input from the external environ.

In which case, where is the deciding self, which given a situation, debates, whether to do his/her duty or not, agonizes whether to not to have an expectation about the results, etc etc etc.

And the beauty of it, is that Krishna, some thousand of years ago, in that same Gita, has said exactly what the neuro-scientists and behavioural experts are realizing today about the instrumentality of the apparatus, labeled a "human being".

Krishna said on the battle field, to Arjun" I have already killed them. You are just a nimit (an instrument) through which that happening is to occur."

When not a single blade can sway in phenomenality, without the will of Divinity for such an event to occur, where is the question of the volition to either doing your duty OR not doing your duty?

Where is the question of having expectations or not having any expectations?

Not doing a duty, if so, in the moment, is the very Impersonal functioning, in the form of "not-doing" through an instrument, in the moment.

"Doing" a duty, if so, in the moment, is once again, the very Impersonal functioning, in the form of "doing" through an instrument, in the moment.

Expecting, hoping, praying for "a" result, is once again Divinity expecting, hoping, praying, for that result through the "expecting" instrument.

A sense of equanimity, opposite both doing and the consequential results if any, is once again the Stith Pragya of Divinity shining through an appropriate instrument.

The essence of Gita is not "Karmanyewa adhikaraste ma phaleshu kadachana"

The essence of Gita is the clear indication that Krishna gives of the notionality of the sense of self, the illusoriness of the sense of the "me-entity" which is nothing but the illusoriness of the sense of personal doership.

The essence of Bhagvad Gita is the clear pointing given to Arjun, that Arjun is a mere nimit for Krishna to act through him.

As is, all sentient and non-sentient manifestations, which act as conditioned instruments for the Impersonal functioning to occur, THROUGH them, moment to moment to moment.

----------------

There by , these dilemmas of what would happen next will leave
you. U shall stand unperturbed. And verily, one who sustains the duality is a
dheera(hero) and a pandita' panditah samadarshanah'

The very root of unhappiness is duality.

In what way, K?

Without duality, Life will not be possible.

It is evil, which establishes the "goodness" of the good.

With evil, good has no meaning.

It is the sinner, which makes the saint, a saint.

It is physical suffering, which establishes the preferability of good health, otherwise how will you define "good health"?

It is death which defines Life, otherwise, how are you convinced that right now you are not dead?

Life is not possible without the dialectic polarity of duality.

Yes, what causes the unhappiness, is dualism.

Which is the sense of entitification.

The sense of the "me", which immediately births the "you".

This "me" assuming itself to be the subject of all that it cognizes, which become it's objects, it is this assumption, which causes the separation, the split-mind.

For now the "me" as a sense of a separate subject, becomes vulnerable, insecure.

It needs to achieve, to seek, to gather, to find, to reach, whether it is a Million dollars or Moksha.

And thus in the very seeking, is the birth of the Personal Hell for the "me".

The joke is that this sense of the "me" is a notion, an idea, an inference.

There is no existential reality to it.

The 'me" is as much a manifested object, as the objects, it in turn ,cognizes.

Just the play of Maya, which enables the hypnosis of itself, by itself, such that now there is an identification with an individual personality.

This dualism, is the root of unhappiness, not duality.

------------

These things keep coming and going.
So, oh bharata! bear with them. That is the true secret of state of non- sorrow.

Further, it is said that Yoga will give you power to bear with the duality(yoga
darshana by patanjali)

and bearing the duality will lead you to immortality(amritatwa) and immortality
is verily moksha.

Immortality and moksha, are relevant to whom, Kish?

To a seeking entity.

Which is a notion.

No entity, has ever attained immortality, or moksha.

No entity, ever.

Yes, in some rare instruments, the sense of entitification, the sense of the "me" has been non-volitionally, acausally, erased.

Popular media call these instruments, enlightened sages or Masters.

But no entity ever gets enlightened.

That's an oxymoron.

---------

Please do not confuse that immortality means not having death to this body. I
don;t think so. This body can be sustained for much longer periods than the
usual through yoga. But this body has to die sometime.

The body-mind complex, is "born" in time.

And will "die" in time.

Whether it is that of Krishna, Arjun, a donkey or Ramana Maharishi.

What appears in time, will disappear in time.

What is not within time, is already free of time.

Tat Twam Asi.

And for "that", immortality, moksha, nirvan, enlightenment, realization, awakening, all these have no relevance, no meaning.

------

Immortality is to achieve the realisation that you r something beyond all these
sheaths that you r made up of.

Yes.

Realization of what you are not, is the path of Neti, Neti.

However that path is not completed, till the "negator" itself is negated.

Thus, "that which you are" can never be realized, experienced, known, or perceived.

Realization, experiences, knowledge, perception are all in the realms of an "entity".

With the end of the entity (which is also laughable, for that can end, if it has an existence in the first place), any description of what-then-remains, can only be a concept.